# 2026-06-05 Roach Route Map and Item-4 Disclaimer [[Ryan Roach]] (Attorney, [[Arkansas Department of Public Safety]]) sends two messages in Gmail thread `19e3d8ec9e0f6ccd` outlining ASP's internal records architecture for Joshua's five-item FOIA request and **explicitly disclaiming any ASP role in CJIS-Systems-Agency oversight of other agencies' ALPR systems**. The disclaimer is the corpus's clearest documentary statement on the locus of state-level oversight responsibility for Arkansas ALPR deployments. ## Roach's 09:54 CDT routing message (Gmail message `19e984750bf856da`) Roach describes the internal routing of the five items: - **Item 1** (procurement / contracts) → **ASP Fiscal Section** ("I have attached all of the requested items from part 1 of your request above") - **Item 2** (internal communications) → *"the Lieutenant in charge of ASP's ALPRs."* The Lieutenant "advised that he has a large amount of emails responsive to this request, and I planned to release these to you on a rolling basis as I receive them." - **Item 5** (grants) → ASP **Grants Division** ("The grants division advised that they should be able to provide me information today for any responsive records they may have") ## Joshua's 10:05 CDT clarification request Joshua replies asking for clarification on Items 3 (usage data) and 4 (CJIS-Systems-Agency role). ## Roach's 10:25 CDT clarification message (Gmail message `19e9863c17b09083`) Roach issues two key clarifications: - **Item 3** (usage / audit data) is bundled with Item 2 routing: *"Request number 3 will come from the Lieutenant, I had him focus on the communications to start, but I should be able to get that to you with the emails as well."* - **Item 4** (CJIS-Systems-Agency role) is **effectively disclaimed by counsel**. Roach's verbatim language: > *"to my knowledge ASP does not conduct any reviews, audits, or approvals of other agencies or municipalities and their use of ALRPs. I do not believe our office would have any records related to request number 4, and that information would likely need to be requested directly from the agency with control over the ALPRs."* ## Sources - Gmail thread `19e3d8ec9e0f6ccd`, messages `19e984750bf856da` (09:54 CDT) and `19e9863c17b09083` (10:25 CDT). ## Significance - **The Item-4 disclaimer is the most analytically important moment in the ASP production**, even though no records are physically transmitted. Roach, through counsel, eliminates the structural hypothesis the FOIA was designed to test: that ASP exercises a CJIS-Systems-Agency oversight role over other Arkansas LE agencies' ALPR deployments. - **The disclaimer is an effective no-records disposition.** While Roach did not issue a formal § 25-19-107 certification, his explicit on-counsel statement that "I do not believe our office would have any records related to request number 4" satisfies the documentary purpose: the corpus now records that ASP does not exercise CJIS-Systems-Agency oversight of Arkansas ALPR deployments. - **The disclaimer pushes the CJIS-oversight question to the next FOIA target.** If state-level CJIS-Systems-Agency responsibility for Arkansas LE access to NCIC and similar federal databases exists, it most-likely sits with the **[[Arkansas Crime Information Center]]** (ACIC). ACIC becomes the next-candidate FOIA target by direct logical extension from this event. - **The routing structure documents ASP's internal records architecture.** Three records-custodians: Fiscal Section (procurement), the Lieutenant (operational), and the Grants Division (federal-funded grants). The architecture is structurally typical of state-agency records-keeping but informative as the corpus's first documentary example at the Arkansas state-LE level. - **Roach's good-faith rolling-release posture** is documented in his rapid response (~30 minutes between Joshua's clarification request and Roach's clarification reply) and substantive transparency about ASP's internal records-custody architecture.